Shooting at Batman film premiere in Denver - 14 dead

[Shane Enochs]

Alright. Let's say Congress gets each state to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution banning firearms to all but law enforcement. How would you guys propose rounding up the weapons? Keep in mind, like I said earlier, there are more than a few who would rather have a shootout with the police than see something like this come to pass.

I'm honestly just curious as to how people see something like this happening.

EDIT - for the record, I'm against weapons in the general sense. I'm a pacifist to a point. I would only kill in self defense, or in defense of another.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Originally Posted by gully_foyle

And what role do we ascribe to Hollywood in all of this? The normalisation of psychopathic ultra-violencen is hard to ignore. Nolan's vision for Batman is a contstant strive to heap terror upon terror. I dig the Dark Knight ethos, but I can see how an unhinged mind can completely lose it in the face of such glorification. And an un-hinged mind with powerful automatic weapons, who thinks they are The Joker, will write their own endings.

Fully automatic weaponry is illegal for citizens. That being said, that doesn't actually stop many people from owning and using them.

What role can Hollywood play? Again, some indirect blame. Like I said, I figured he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, and that's what it looks like doctors are saying about him here. Or if not schizophrenia, some other form of psychosis.


When people say that these sorts of people "have never done this sort of thing before" or "would never hurt a fly, nicest person, blah blah blah," I think, yeah, I'll believe that when man lives on the sun. I hashed over it last night.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Alright. Let's say Congress gets each state to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution banning firearms to all but law enforcement. How would you guys propose rounding up the weapons? Keep in mind, like I said earlier, there are more than a few who would rather have a shootout with the police than see something like this come to pass.

I'm honestly just curious as to how people see something like this happening.

EDIT - for the record, I'm against weapons in the general sense. I'm a pacifist to a point. I would only kill in self defense, or in defense of another.

Answering only for myself...

Why are you assuming we would want to round them up?

Just changing the legality of guns changes the way that police officers can respond when they find a gun on someone, and that can change the way that a lot of things go down. As it is now, a police officer can find guns under all sorts of ridiculous circumstances and be very limited in how they deal with them. Police officers can go to a disturbance, find a weapon in someone's house who just threatened someone, and not be able to take the gun. I've watched it happen. He got arrested, but was out in a few days, and we knew he had a loaded weapon in his house because we watched the police officer put it back.

And incidentally, I'm not a pacifist at all. I even own guns. I've fired an M-16, own a glock, and occasionally go target shooting. I keep my guns in a safe, and I served in the Air Force. I know the proper way to use a weapon and will do so safely. If the law were that my weapons were to be confiscated, I would obey the law, but it's not necessarily what I'm looking for.

Please try to get this into your head. This is not a "binary world." Because I favor gun control doesn't necessarily mean that I want them all rounded up. Gun 'control' means registering them, requiring people who use them to know how to use them properly, and requiring that people be responsible. I think that every time a gun is purchased, it should be registered in the name of the person who bought it, and he should be responsible for what is done with that weapon. And if he has a problem with taking responsibility, then he shouldn't own the weapon in the first place.

It means that irresponsible nitwits, people with a history of violent crime, and dangerous mental disorders should probably be barred from owning them. Right now, we know that people near the border with Mexico are buying assault rifles, going a few miles south, and selling assault rifles for 5k a pop. These weapons are then used to murder innocent people, and occasionally mexican police, and even members of their military and politicians.

And even though we know all that, even though federal authorities wanted to stop it, they could not. They have been forced to watch people go in and make these purchases and walk away, because they have a right to make the purchase and we have no legal standing to stop them. Every month, week, and day that goes by, people in Mexico pay the price for our lax controls.

[alchemist]

Originally Posted by Karn Maeshalanadae

What role can Hollywood play? Again, some indirect blame. Like I said, I figured he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, and that's what it looks like doctors are saying about him here. Or if not schizophrenia, some other form of psychosis.

I looked for reports on this but couldn't find any. Do you have a link, Karn?

I'd be surprised if he was psychotic. What I've read from people who knew the suspect doesn't point in that direction. Spree shooters don't tend to have schizophrenia (or other psychoses) either, but are often sociopaths with a grudge against society.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

... Just changing the legality of guns changes the way that police officers can respond when they find a gun on someone, and that can change the way that a lot of things go down. As it is now, a police officer can find guns under all sorts of ridiculous circumstances and be very limited in how they deal with them ...

You see, that's the issue. The USA is so vast and sprawling that, apart from the constitutional issue, gun control becomes impractical to enforce, unlike in the UK. In South Africa, which is also a big country, but one in which it's quite difficult to obtain a licensed firearm, illegal guns are everywhere. The cops can't keep up. Anyway, the last lunatic to rampage with guns was in Norway which, I imagine, has tight gun control ...

[Gordian Knot]

Originally Posted by Denise Tanaka

He goes on to talk about the successful efforts of Rio State Public Security Secretary Jose Mariano Beltrame to make positive change.

How sad that, in America, we don't have leaders and influential people pushing for change. I don't understand flawed arguments that passionately promote more guns and more violence, that advocate turning our neighborhoods into war zones.

The answer to your question is simple. There is no NRA in Rio. The NRA is not only totally irresponsible about their attitudes about guns, they have enough political clout to squash ANY politician who even considers gun control.

[Gordian Knot]

Originally Posted by Karn Maeshalanadae

Fully automatic weaponry is illegal for citizens.

I do not believe you are correct about that. The ban on these weapons was allowed to expire when George W was President. Obama has done nothing to change that.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Originally Posted by alchemist

I looked for reports on this but couldn't find any. Do you have a link, Karn?

I'd be surprised if he was psychotic. What I've read from people who knew the suspect doesn't point in that direction. Spree shooters don't tend to have schizophrenia (or other psychoses) either, but are often sociopaths with a grudge against society.

It's only conjecture, but the site I read http://kristinarandle.com/blog/categ...rado-shooting/ has some thoughts by various mental health professionals about the profile of the shooter. It also says that what psychosis actually is, is a break from reality. If the media is correct about the statement, the shooter had a break from reality, claiming he was a villain from a fictional story. And while it is true that schizophrenics are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, but those with dissociative identity disorder can have auditory hallucinations which may lead to actions of violence. And that's just one link of many that mention this horrid event. And there are other possible forms of psychosis that he could be suffering from, if he is suffering from it at all; antisocial disorder, bipolar disorder, or others that the site I read listed as "NOS" or not otherwise specified.


It says not to be in a rush to diagnose the shooter, and I do agree that in the very least he should have a very thorough examination by trained, licensed mental health professionals, but I do believe that mental illness could have played a part in this.

[Denise Tanaka]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

The answer to your question is simple. There is no NRA in Rio. The NRA is not only totally irresponsible about their attitudes about guns, they have enough political clout to squash ANY politician who even considers gun control.

Very true. I think the NRA has more influence than the Tobacco companies these days. It's harder for a teenager to buy a pack of cigarettes than to buy a gun.

[alchemist]

Originally Posted by Karn Maeshalanadae

It's only conjecture, but the site I read http://kristinarandle.com/blog/categ...rado-shooting/ has some thoughts by various mental health professionals about the profile of the shooter. It also says that what psychosis actually is, is a break from reality. If the media is correct about the statement, the shooter had a break from reality, claiming he was a villain from a fictional story.

Thanks for the link. Lots of good-to-see professional reticence there. What will be critical is whether he believed he was the Joker (as reported) or whether he believed he was just acting a role.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Originally Posted by alchemist

Thanks for the link. Lots of good-to-see professional reticence there. What will be critical is whether he believed he was the Joker (as reported) or whether he believed he was just acting a role.

Well yes, like I said, if the media was correct in this and if he truly believed he was The Joker, then chances are great that mental illness came into play.

If he was only roleplaying, then I would more greatly believe him to be a simple sociopath and deserving of prison time rather than a mental ward. In either case, though, it should have never taken place.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I wonder when we will hear more about what his mother has to say? At one point we heard that she wasn't at all surprised to hear that he had done something like that, and in fact was sure that her son was the culprit as soon as she heard that it happened.

It sounds like she must have known something. So often when someone with mental health issues commits a high profile homicide we learn that the family of the murderer knew that he was sick, begged the authorities to do something, and nothing was done for one reason or another.

With everything computerized the way it is, surely, surely it isn't too much to ask that when someone buys a gun legally there should be some kind of background check that would uncover this sort of information.

That, and when someone is diagnosed as mentally ill and their family repeatedly states that they are violent, something ought to be done.

Which may not be the case here, and we shouldn't rush to make assumptions about this particular person or his situation. I'm just speaking on general principles.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I had said before, if he is mentally ill and any of his loved ones had known, then at least some of the blame lays on them-for not keeping a close eye on him, for allowing him to live a quarter of the country away, or even for possibly being in denial. I don't know.

[Nerds_feather]

Just so the non-Americans are clear, banning gun ownership in the United States is just never going to happen. It's in our Bill of Rights, and the Constitution is very, very hard to change (and this is generally a good thing...it protects the separation of church and state as well).

That said, our courts have made it clear that limitations on the types of weapons and ammunition American citizens can buy are constitutional. During the years 1994-2004, there was an assault weapon ban--which covered the gun this Holmes used to commit most of his casualties, though not the other 3. It also limited the size of ammo clips to 10 bullets. When it expired in 2004, it became possible to buy clips that held 100 bullets. Holmes used 100 bullet clips, as did Jared Loughtner, the guy who shot up Congresswoman Giffords' campaign event.

It would also be constitutional to expand the background check system to include mental health reviews, and make it an annual or biannual condition of license renewal. Had that been in place, Holmes, Loughtner and others would not have been able to purchase weapons legally, as they did.

None of this would ensure that these things couldn't happen again, but they would reduce the risk of it happening as often as it does, and potentially reduce the deadliness of them when they do.

Practically speaing, and for better or for worse, this is about the limit of what we could reasonably expect to change as a result of this horrible tragedy.

[hopewrites]

The problem with "gun control" is that it only applies to law abiding citizens, and it's not the law abiding citizens who are breaking the laws now is it.